"No dealmakers in Teheran:" If you give in to the West, you will wind up like Arafat or Gorbachev..."

[MEPGS- Excerpts:]

" Although US officials tout President Obama's meeting yesterday with Russian
President Medvedev as having produced progress towards a coordinated strategy, which could include further economic sanctions against Iran, many US officials and foreign diplomats remain skeptical. "It's going to be very difficult to get the Russians behind a new, tougher UN sanctions resolution," says one senior US official.  "And without the Russians, there is no chance of getting the Chinese to come on board."      A number of analysts believe that the Administration is trying two approaches to entice Moscow.  The first can best be described as flattery.  Or as one State Department insider puts it, "Treat the Russians like the superpower they once were."  Falling into that category was the recent decision not to proceed with Bush Administration plans to install a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.  The second approach is to use what limited leverage the US has with Russia.  These actions could include on the negative side, delaying its entry into the World Trade Organization or on the positive side, allowing Moscow to host a future Middle East Peace Conference.
      However, these moves are poor planning indeed, if that is all the Administration has on hand should, as most observers believe, the October 1 talks between the US and Iran (along with five other countries) do not lead to a breakthrough.  As one veteran diplomat with recent experience in dealing with Iran put it, "The leadership fixed the election precisely because they wanted to control relations with the outside world.  They see their future inextricably tied to a revolutionary, aggressive Iran."  This diplomat also argues, "If you give in to the West, you will wind up like [former Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev or [the late Palestinian leader Yassir] Arafat."..."There are no dealmakers in Teheran 
anymore."  This leaves the hard liners effectively in control for the time being
and unable and unwilling to make a deal on the nuclear or other outstanding issues, he says.
     Still, according to well-placed sources, key Administration officials still refuse to share their views, other than in the most general terms, about how to pressure Iran.  And with time running out for President Obama's goal of making progress by the end of the year, a number of US allies a beginning to get restless. "We know they are going to try to get another sanctions resolution from the [UN] Security Council," says one western diplomat.  "They have also spoken of gaining sanctions backing from the entire European Community [Italy has moved closer to a hard line position and Germany is expected to after next week's Parliamentary elections -- assuming Angela Merkel remains Chancellor]."  A third group, including important trading partners, such as Japan, are also expected to adopt punitive sanctions against Iran.  But critics argue that the Administration is not only wasting time by not focusing on tactics but is determined to win, what one diplomat calls "The blame game," with Iran.  His critique: Countries who are prepared to act against Iran are already "on board" and do not need a "blame game."
     But when pressed about the kind of sanctions US allies have in mind, European diplomats speak in terms far different from, say, US hard liners.  House and Senate bills, for example, are being prepared that are designed to severely restrict Iran's ability to import refined oil [necessary for up to 40% of its current usage].  But the Europeans, fearing that this will impact the entire population (which they point out that so far has not rallied around the regime despite sanctions repeatedly imposed by the Security Council).  Instead, what they are talking about is preventing investment in new refineries or help in the maintenance of current ones.  However, even some US officials fear going too far.  For example, many are wary of targeting Iran's central bank.  "Trying to cut off Iran's access to capital markets is a extreme step that we shouldn't undertake lightly," says one Capitol Hill source.
     If tactics for dealing with Iran are still are behind schedule, then plans for dealing with Israelis and Palestinians have yet to get anywhere.  This was clear at the United Nations this week, when President Obama was unable, as he had hoped, to announce a resumption of talks between the two sides.  Administration officials admit privately that they have wasted nearly six months in a futile effort to get Israel to suspend its settlement construction in the West Bank and Jerusalem.  Some officials go even further in their criticism, saying that this approach was doomed from the beginning.  "Bibi [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] came out the winner," says one veteran US official.  "It was foolish to include Jerusalem in any settlement freeze.  It insured that Bibi had 90% backing from the Israeli electorate."  Other officials go even further in criticizing the Administration in general and the President in particular.  "Obama reaches out to the Arab world; gives a major speech in Cairo but never talks to the Israeli people," says one veteran State Department official.  "No wonder he has a six per cent approval rating in Israel."
     US officials also believe that this policy has undermined Palestinian leader, Abu Mazen.  "He couldn't afford to be less pro-Palestinian than the President," argues one State Department insider.  Even its attempts to enlist support from other Arab countries fell short. .......
      Frustration is also evident over the inability of Lebanon's Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri, to form a government.  After scoring an unexpected victory in the June elections, Hariri's pro-western grouping has been unable to put together a cabinet acceptable to the powerful Hezbollah-led opposition.  As far as most US officials are concerned, it is not the radical Shia Hezbollah that is to blame but rather its somewhat strange bedfellow Christian bloc led by the charismatic Michel Aoun.  While some US officials fear chaos if the stalemate is not broken soon, others take a more detached view of the sometimes Byzantine workings of the Lebanese system.  "After last May's violence in Beirut, neither side is eager to push each other too far," says one veteran US official."